CoreLogic Sanctioned Over $86,000 For Violating Court Orders Compelling Arbitration
On January 9, 2020, in the matter of Mitchell v. CoreLogic, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-02274-DOC-DFM (C.D.Cal.), United States District Court Judge David O. Carter ordered Defendant CoreLogic to pay $86,355.62 in sanctions to Plaintiffs’ Counsel Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. and Nichols Kaster, LLP for “willfully and unreasonably disobey[ing]” the Court’s orders compelling arbitration.
The order is the latest in a series of orders in the Mitchell case regarding arbitration. In the case, filed December 29, 2017, the plaintiffs – real estate appraisers for defendant CoreLogic – allege a variety of violations of state and federal wage and hours laws, including failure to pay overtime, failure to provide adequate meal and rest breaks, and failure to pay premiums for missed breaks. In February 2019, CoreLogic filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration. The Court granted that motion, compelling opt-in Plaintiffs who signed arbitration agreements to proceed in arbitration. Plaintiffs did so, filing approximately 160 individual demands for arbitration. In May of 2019, CoreLogic filed an ex parte request asking the Court to enjoin the then-pending arbitrations. The Court denied the request, holding: “CoreLogic asked for resolution of any and all disputes by the arbitrator. Having compelled arbitration, the Court will not now stay those proceedings due to associated costs.”
CoreLogic later refused to participate further in approximately 111 of the arbitrations until the AAA resolved certain “threshold issues.” The AAA determined that these issues should go to individual arbitrators, then closed approximately 111 cases for CoreLogic’s failure to pay arbitration fees. Following the AAA’s administrative closure of these cases, Plaintiffs asked the Court to hold CoreLogic in default on its obligation to arbitrate and to retake jurisdiction over the cases. The Court declined to retake jurisdiction, instead ordering the parties to resume arbitrating. The Court did, however, find that CoreLogic had “displayed a pattern of dilatory conduct,” and had “willfully and unreasonably disobeyed” its orders. The sanctions order followed.
Plaintiffs’ counsel Matthew C. Helland, of Nichols Kaster, LLP said that Plaintiffs were pleased with the order. He noted that “individualized arbitration is expensive for employers, but employers who choose to compel arbitration must be prepared to defend those cases, no matter the cost.” Plaintiffs’ counsel Bryan J. Schwartz of Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. agreed, saying, “Plaintiffs are eager to proceed with their claims in arbitration and are hopeful that CoreLogic’s obstructionist tactics will now cease.”
Plaintiffs are represented by Bryan J. Schwartz and Natasha T. Baker of Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C., in Oakland, California, and Matthew C. Helland and Daniel S. Brome of Nichols Kaster, LLP, which has offices in Minneapolis, Minnesota and San Francisco, California. The case is entitled, Mitchell v. CoreLogic, Inc. et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-02274-DOC-DFM (C.D.Cal.).
For additional information about the case please call Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. at (888) 891-8489 or Nichols Kaster, LLP at (877) 448-0492.
Mitchell, et al. v. CoreLogic, 17-2274-DOC (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2019) (awarding over $86K in sanctions for Defendant’s failure to pay arbitration bills after seeking to compel claims to arbitration)CoreLogic-Sanctioned-Over-86000-For-Violating-Court-Orders-Compelling-Arbitration
Bryan Schwartz and team are stellar professionals. I worked really closely with Renato Flores. He was patient and showed a lot of care and rigor in explaining the ins and out to me and the practical advice he shared was outstanding. Bryan is well connected…
Exceptional people, powerful advocates, tough negotiators. Bryan Schwartz and senior associate Jane Mackie truly care about fairness and justice. Their hard work, attention to detail, and the time and responsiveness they devoted to all my questions let me know in a hundred ways that they…
I cannot say enough GREAT things about Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. -- and in particular, former paralegal Devin Stuzin. I was recently part of a large class-action settlement -- one the firm tenaciously pursued for a whopping 17 years before getting a record settlement on…
Best people they took my case right a way and fought and win my case best lawyers in bay-area love you all
I was a member of the Doering Meyer class action lawsuit versus the State Department. Bryan Schwartz is a very tenacious and outstanding attorney. When this law firm first contacted me about the case, I was skeptical about their ability to win a case against…
Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C., is a leading employment rights law firm in the United States with a global reach. His is a legal practice of conscientiousness and virtue. Labor law protects a most fundamental right of citizenship and civic engagement. Worker rights are human rights.…
A great team, who kept me informed every step of the way along a many year path to winning a successful class action case.
The staff at this firm are very professional, responsive, friendly, and effective. They persevere for years to get results. I highly recommend them.
Amazing experience with communication and handling of this massive case; I appreciate the help and resolution.
I had a great experience with the firm. They represented me and others in a case that lasted for several years, yet I always knew who to contact and they were always responsive and professional, even as more junior team members transitioned over the years.…
Submit an inquiry to have Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. evaluate your situation.
*Your submission of an intake request form does not guarantee that Bryan Schwartz Law, P.C. will take your case or provide legal advice. You must be offered and sign a representation agreement with the firm before you will receive any legal advice.
How did we do?
Note: Your review may be shared publicly.